Bob Ringma

[Quebec, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, over the last week I have spoken to many constituents at town hall meetings. At those meetings the question of Quebec has been a hot topic.

My constituents are concerned about the government's lack of leadership on this critical issue. While the Leader of the Official Opposition jets around Europe promoting his vision of an independent Quebec, the people of Nanaimo-Cowichan grow weary of the separation debate. They also wonder why political leaders in France and Belgium are willing to comment on Canadian solidarity, yet not a word from our own Prime Minister.

The people of western Canada are not satisfied with status quo federalism and are demanding change. That demand is leading to new rumblings of discontent with traditional federalism in the west. This is the result of a disenchanted electorate from coast to coast.

If the Prime Minister wants to run this country with his head in the sand, he might want at least to peek out from time to time to make sure the ground around him is still solid.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, following that hypothetical answer, I would like to try one more time with another one of the Prime Minister's ministers. The government House leader recently stated at a convention that the government had no policy regarding native self-determination in Quebec should separation occur.

Can the Prime Minister tell this House whether he has any strategy to deal with aboriginal people in Quebec so that all Canadians, including members of his own cabinet, will know how he intends to address this crucial issue?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Last Tuesday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development suggested that the aboriginal people of Quebec would have the right to remain in Canada if Quebec separates. On Thursday the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had misspoken and would soon clarify his remarks.

Can the Prime Minister tell this House which of his ministers speaks for the government on the subject of aboriginal people in Quebec?

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I answer the question of the hon. member with a great deal of pleasure. If you institute a system in which there is a form of punishment as I am suggesting you reduce the number of inmates. They do not want to go back. You can accomplish in 30 days in the digger what six months or a year would not accomplish in today's modern facility where they are given all the amenities of life. Make it undesirable for them to do 30 days time and they will not be back. You will reduce the number of people in that facility and thereby exercise fiscal restraint. There will be less need for a facility in the long run. Give it a try. I am quite sincere in the proposal.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would have to agree with the last comment of the hon. member. Indeed, if there is illness then special account has to be taken of that. Nevertheless, there is probably some middle ground that could be found to say: "We excuse you for your illness, we will help you with that. In the meantime here are the rules we are going to establish that you in your turn must obey".

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is not solitary confinement when they are put through this routine in the detention barracks. They are there with other inmates. They are made to go out and do the drills and such like. This is just a severe form of discipline.

If you disagree with it that is fine. I suggest that it really worked. I would like us to have a trial and just see if it would not work with the young fellows. I bet it would.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in speaking to this motion on the Young Offenders Act I note that there is a difference between the public perception of what the problem is and a difference in perception on the government side.

I think the public perceives that something is wrong and that something should be done about it. The government acknowledges this to a fair degree. When I listen to the Minister of Justice, I get an acknowledgement: "Yes, something is wrong, we will do something about it" but perhaps not with the urgency that some of us would put on it.

Between these perceptions, what is the reality? When I look at the news media coverage of young offenders and what is going on there, I have to wonder if there is not some exaggeration.

To try to answer the question of what is the problem I have gone back in my life and asked how were things when I was a kid. As a child or a young person in Vancouver things were different. We did not have many privileges in those days and I surely did not see the police very often. If you saw the police, wow, that was something to be very apprehensive about. To be

sure we had a few bad kids in the neighbourhood who tended to get into trouble.

That is my recollection of what actually was going on. There must have been offenders, young offenders, in those days as well as there are today.

I say fine, now project ahead, Bob. Are the children or the youth of today any different from what they were in my day? My answer to that has to be no, how could they be that different. Surely we depend on evolution for differences of any major nature so my basic conclusion is the kids must be the same essentially, so what is different? The answer to that I reckon has to be society. The whole society around the children of today has changed and that means all of us. We have changed. We are the society that surrounds our children. What are we doing that is different?

One of the changes of course is with parents. Parents today both tend to be working, they are out. Children at home do not have the same parental guidance and care.

The other big change that I perceive is the view of responsibility versus rights. Today it is all my rights, my rights, my rights. I do not hear my responsibility is so and so. That I presume is partly a question of law, of the charter of rights and such like. It is also a perception of society and society has put the emphasis on individual rights rather than individual responsibilities. I think therein lies part of the problem.

In trying to address this whole thing we should not put the blame just on government, just on the law, just on the predisposing causes in society for young offenders. I think we have to look generally at society and ask where the problems are, what are the faults that we individually must accept part of the responsibility for.

Certainly philosophy I put at the top of the list. I do perceive that maybe the pendulum of change has swung quite far enough and that society generally is ready to see it go back again. I dislike extremes and I would not like to see it go one way too far any more than the other.

The other thing that really came to mind when I looked back over my life are the good number of years that I put in the army. We had a thing in the army called service detention barracks. There used to be a number of them across the country. I think there is probably one left today in Edmonton. The SDB was quite an institution and is today. Here is the experience that I have had with SDBs.

I have never fortunately been an inmate but if any of my young soldiers broke the law to a sufficient degree that they would be put on summary trial, not a court martial, the commanding officer could award them 30 days in the service detention barracks.

I am witness to the fact that any young lad who came back from 30 days in the digger, in the glass house, in the SDB, was changed for life. He never wanted to go back to the detention barracks. He would behave. He would change his character if he had to to avoid getting that 30 days in the digger.

What did they do in the digger? Did they beat him? No, they did not. There was no corporal punishment even for privates. What they did in the SDB was disciplined the young fellow within an inch of his life. When he entered the detention barracks his hair was cut to the standards of the provost corps that ran the barracks. He was not asked how long he would like it.

If we do the comparison today of young offenders going in they might get six months or whatever, they are allowed to do what they want to do. They are allowed to wear their hair long, wear their own clothes, speak when they want to, watch colour TV. It is a great old thing.

Thirty days in the slammer was not like today's six months. Thirty days they went in, they got their hair cut, they were told when they could speak. They were not mouthing off because they were not allowed to. They were told precisely what they would do in shining their shoes, including the sole. They were told precisely how to shine their brass, how to make their bed. Every detail of their existence for 30 days was under a microscope and under a sergeant who knew his business in administering discipline. They were not beaten, but they were made to do everything precisely for that period of time.

As I said earlier it changed them for life. They said: "No more of that for me. I will behave".

I suggest to this House, I suggest to society, that if a punishment works, and that is what it is, surely we can invoke it again. What is to prevent us as a society from saying even if we run a test case on it, let us get a platoon of old provost corps types and say: "Boys, run at it". I bet we would get results.

To conclude, in supporting this amendment I would call the attention of the House and even of the nation to a referendum trial that is going to go on in North Vancouver, British Columbia in June. Watch it. It will be a referendum available on official-

[Esquimalt And Nanaimo Railway, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer but it is precisely that we on the west coast and Vancouver Island are trying to get at the facts here.

Unfortunately the minister's department has refused a personal request for a copy of the contract between the people of Canada and CP rail and is now stalling again on our access to information request for this contract which would give us the information we need.

Can the minister first explain why the people of Canada are being denied the right to see how their money is spent? Second, will he promise to enter into negotiations to turn the line over to local interests?

[Esquimalt And Nanaimo Railway, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Last week the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the government's appeal of the case involving the E and N Railway stating that the government had no constitutional obligation to run the line in perpetuity.

Can the minister advise the people of Vancouver Island if he now intends to follow through with the earlier Tory decision to scrap VIA passenger service on the E and N?

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, killing the Pearson airport deal was a very good thing indeed. The Prime Minister and his government should take some credit for having done that.

The enabling legislation, Bill C-22, contains compensation provisions for the developers. Why is that? As reported in the Ottawa Sun on October 6, 1993 during the election campaign, the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister said: ``I challenge the Prime Minister to stop that deal right now. People have a right to know what is in the deal''. The Prime Minister was entirely correct in saying that.

To go further on the side of the government, to quote the Minister of Transport, speaking in the House on April 26, he said: "Our government after careful examination of the agreements has determined that they are not in the public interest. Our examination included a report by Mr. Robert Nixon who described a flawed process clouded by the possibility of political manipulation".

The Minister of Transport went on to say: "This government rejects the previous government's way of doing business on behalf of Canadians. A reliance on lobbyists, the backroom dealings, the manipulation of bona fide private sector interests and the lack of respect for the impartiality of public servants are absolutely unacceptable". I applaud the minister's words.

Therefore if we take the government at face value, it decries the backroom deals and would have everything brought out into the open. However, the fine print of Bill C-22 will allow the Minister of Transport to provide for appropriate payments to the partnership for its out of pocket expenses. There is the problem.

On the one hand the government said: "Get things out into the open" and on the other it says in effect: "Trust us, we will provide whatever compensation we think fit and there will be no need to publicize it".

Only three weeks elapsed between the signing of the contract on October 7 and the order to put it on hold. If there is any compensation payable for work done in that short period, then let it be spelled out in complete detail and let it be made public.

Why would the government now want to keep all the facts from the public? Is it that it discovered that many of its own friends were involved in the deal? It was not just Tories in the Paxport consortium but apparently Liberal supporters in Claridge Properties Limited and in Paxport.

That gives us a possible motivation for the government wanting to pay compensation but not make it public. The Leader of the Opposition spelled it out very clearly in his discourse in the Chamber on April 26. I completely agree with his analysis of the situation but in the end he recommends that a royal commission be established to get at the truth.

We agree that the facts must be made public. How is that best done? A royal commission would cost millions of dollars and would drag on for months or even for years if we go by previous royal commissions. Why not use the existing apparatus of government, specifically the Standing Committee on Transport? If the House chooses we could strike a select special committee of the House to investigate what has happened and bring forward sufficient witnesses to fully expose this Pearson airport deal.

Here is an opportunity to give to the citizens of Canada some renewed faith in the institution of Parliament. They have lost a lot of faith in the political system and perhaps even in this House. They ask: "Why do we have Parliament if you cannot debate things fully and bring this out into the open?" Here is our opportunity. Address this to the people of Canada. Show them that we can have witnesses here and that we can expose every angle of what may be a dirty deal.

Whether it is a select special committee or the existing Standing Committee on Transport, such action of bringing in witnesses and exposing it all could accomplish the following four things for the country and for the House.

First, it would fully disclose to the public all of the facts of the case. Second, it could decide whether or not there are any legitimate cases warranting compensation and, if so, bring these out into the open. Third, such action could save the money that would be spent on a royal commission and that could be a lot of money. Finally, it could, perhaps would, restore some public faith in their Parliament.

In conclusion, I advocate that the House seriously consider completing the investigation into the Pearson airport deal through the existing Standing Committee on Transport or through a select special committee.